The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s reporting of events from 2021 involving the crushing of rubble and dust nuisance at a development site close to Ms X’s home. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council’s records of an officer visit to a development site where dust nuisance had been reported were inaccurate and different to what would have been seen at the site. She says the Council was more interested in protecting building contractors than residents and that her health has been affected by the dust caused by the crushing of rubble.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X’s representative, Mr Q, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In response to reports of dust from a development site caused by the crushing of rubble, a Council officer visited the area, spoke to the site engineer and saw the dust suppression controls in place. The officer decided no further action was required at the time of the visit.
Mr Q complained to the Council about its handling of this matter and disputed the findings of the officer. In responding to the complaint, the Council confirmed the officer’s findings but it did accept there had not been a clear explanation of who had been investigating the complaint or what powers and duties they had. It also acknowledged it should have communicated better with Ms X and Mr Q and gave an apology for its failings, confirming it had taken action to ensure officers’ roles, their powers and the legislation would be better explained to those who contact it.
While I note Mr Q disputes what the officer saw when making their visit in 2021, an investigation by the Ombudsman would serve no useful purpose now and an investigation could not conclude the Council was responsible for the negative impact on Ms X’s health. Such a finding would have to be made by a court and Ms X should seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman